Three-Dimensional FEA Analysis of the Stress Distribution on Titanium and Graphene Frameworks Supported by 3 or 6-Implant Models

被引:14
作者
Desai, Shrikar R. [1 ]
Koulgikar, Kiran Deepak [1 ]
Alqhtani, Nasser Raqe [2 ]
Alqahtani, Ali Robaian [3 ]
Alqahtani, Abdullah Saad [4 ]
Alenazi, Adel [2 ]
Heboyan, Artak [5 ]
Fernandes, Gustavo V. O. [6 ]
Mustafa, Mohammed [3 ]
机构
[1] HKES S Nijalingappa Inst Dent Sci & Res, Dept Periodontol & Implantol, Kalaburagi 585105, India
[2] Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz Univ, Coll Dent, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg & Diagnost Sci, Al Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
[3] Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz Univ, Coll Dent, Dept Conservat Dent Sci, Al Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
[4] Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz Univ, Coll Dent, Dept Prevent Dent Sci, Al Kharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
[5] Yerevan State Med Univ, Fac Stomatol, Dept Prosthodont, Str Koryun 2, Yerevan 0025, Armenia
[6] Univ Michigan, Periodont & Oral Med Dept, Sch Dent, 1011 North Univ Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
关键词
endosseous implants; finite element analysis; graphene; mandible; titanium; FINITE-ELEMENT-ANALYSIS; MANDIBULAR PROSTHESES; COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY; IMPLANTS; LENGTH;
D O I
10.3390/biomimetics8010015
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
Titanium is the main component of dental implants. It is also routinely used as a framework material for implant-supported full-arch prostheses due to its low density, biocompatibility, and other mechanical properties. Remarkable mechanical properties such as lesser mass density and higher young's modulus of graphene have gained popularity among scientists, improving the properties of biomedical implants. Thus, our study aimed to compare the outcome through the von Mises stresses generated on All-on-6 and All-on-3 implant models, as well as on the framework, and evaluate the effect of stress patterns on the crestal bone around implants in the mandible. FEA (Finite Element Analysis) study was carried out using edentulous mandible models. Four 3D FEA models with 3 and 6 implants were used (Model 1: Titanium bar-supported 6 straight implants; Model 2: Graphene bar-supported 6 straight implants; Model 3: Titanium bar-supported 3 implants with 30 degrees-tilted; Model 4: Graphene bar-supported 3 implants with 30 degrees-tilted) in order to simulate endosseous implant designs. The implant measuring 4.2 mm in diameter and 11.5 mm in length were used. The most distal implants in the 3-implant models were placed with angulation of 30 degrees; in 6 implants, they were vertically placed. All the models were analyzed for vertical and oblique axis with a single force magnitude of 100 N. In all four implant models and under loading conditions, the peak stress points were always on the neck of the most distal implant. von Mises stresses were within the normal stress range. In a conventional six-straight implant model supported by a titanium framework, the cortical stress in the region of implants was 25.27 MPa, whereas, in the graphene framework, it was 12.18 MPa. Under vertical load, there was a significant difference in the cortical stress around the tilted implants (30 degrees) in the 3-implant system of titanium and graphene frameworks, respectively, 70.31 MPa and 21.27 MPa. The graphene framework demonstrated better results than the titanium framework for the conventional six-implant system under vertical load, achieving stress of 30.09 MPa and 76.60 MPa, respectively. In the case of the 3-implant system, a significant difference in the bar stress was observed between graphene and titanium, respectively, 256.32 MPa and 180.1 MPa of bar stress. Within the limitation of this study, the peri-implant stresses were decreased using graphene framework models. Hence, it was possible to conclude that the best load-bearing capacity results were found in the graphene framework group compared to the titanium framework for All-on-6 and All-on-3 implant models, even though both materials are reliable options used as framework materials in implant-supported full-arch prostheses.
引用
收藏
页数:25
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]  
ADELL R, 1990, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, V5, P347
[2]  
Ahmed M.A.M., 2022, BRAZ DENT SCI, V25, pe3380, DOI [10.4322/bds.2022.e3380, DOI 10.4322/BDS.2022.E3380]
[3]   Minimizing Risk of Failure from Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Prosthesis by Selecting Ceramic Materials Based on Tresca Stress [J].
Ammarullah, Muhammad Imam ;
Santoso, Gatot ;
Sugiharto, S. ;
Supriyono, Toto ;
Wibowo, Dwi Basuki ;
Kurdi, Ojo ;
Tauviqirrahman, Mohammad ;
Jamari, J. .
SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (20)
[4]  
Bellini CM, 2009, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V24, P511
[5]  
Bevilacqua M, 2008, INT J PROSTHODONT, V21, P539
[6]   Is the Fixed Mandibular 3-Implant Retained Prosthesis Safe and Predicable for Full-Arch Mandibular Prostheses? A Systematic Review [J].
Brandao, Thais Bianca ;
Vechiato-Filho, Aljomar Jose ;
Vedovato, Euripedes ;
Silva, Lorena Scaioni ;
dos Santos Silva, Alan Roger ;
Brito e Dias, Reinaldo ;
de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2021, 30 (02) :119-127
[7]  
Branemark P I, 1999, Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, V1, P2, DOI 10.1111/j.1708-8208.1999.tb00086.x
[8]   Comparison between all-on-four and all-on-six treatment concepts and framework material on stress distribution in atrophic maxilla: A prototyping guided 3D-FEA study [J].
Brilhante Bhering, Claudia Lopes ;
Mesquita, Marcelo Ferraz ;
Kemmoku, Daniel Takanori ;
Noritomi, Pedro Yoshito ;
Xediek Consani, Rafael Leonardo ;
Ricardo Barao, Valentim Adelino .
MATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING C-MATERIALS FOR BIOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 2016, 69 :715-725
[9]  
Cannizzaro G, 2012, EUR J ORAL IMPLANTOL, V5, P49
[10]   Finite Element Analysis of Provisional Structures of Implant-Supported Complete Prostheses [J].
Carneiro, Bruno Albuquerque ;
de Brito, Rui Barbosa, Jr. ;
Gomes Franca, Fabiana Mantovani .
JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2014, 40 (02) :161-168